For sort(1) we need memmem(), which I imported from OpenBSD.
Inside sort(1), the changes involved working with the explicit lengths
given by getlines() earlier and rewriting some of the functions.
Now we can handle NUL-characters in the input just fine.
Forgot that in case there is a second argument given with -s you
probably want to have your characters substituted.
I changed it so that shortly before "deploying" we check if the
"to be written"-Rune is equal to the last Rune, and proceed as
Use strtol and strtoul respectively for d, i and o, u, x, X conversions.
This way we can convert other bases than 10, which strtonum doesn't
Also don't exit on conversion error but display a warning, set a return
error code, and continue.
The assumption of NUL-terminated strings is actually quite a good one in
most cases. You don't have to worry about paths, because they may not
Same applies to arguments passed to you. Unless you have to unescape,
there is no way for you to receive a NUL.
There are two important exceptions though, and it's important that we
address them, or else we get unexpected behaviour:
1) All tools using unescape() have to be strict about delimlen.
Else they end up for instance unescaping
which in C's string-vision is an empty string.
2) All tools doing line wrenching and putting them out
again as lines again.
puts() will cut each line containing NULs off at the first
strmem() was not very well thought out. The thing is the following:
If the string contains a zero character, we want to match it, and not
stop right there in place.
The "real" solution is to use memmem() where needed and replace all
functions that assume zero-terminated-strings from standard input, which
could lead to early string-breakoffs.
This requires a strict tracking of string lengths.
We want our delimiters to also contain 0 characters and have them
To accomplish this, I wrote a function strmem(), which looks for a
certain, arbitrarily long memory subset in a given string.
memmem() is a GNU extension and forces you to call strlen every time.
Previously, we used the System V output format:
The problem here is, that if any number has more than six digits, the
result looks like one big number, as we don't mandate spaces.
POSIX says the output format should rather be
"%d %d %d %s\n"
but in this case we wouldn't get consistent results.
To serve both camps, I changed it to the following:
"%6d %6d %6d %s\n"
This won't change the output for normal values, but also
prevent the output of large files to be ambiguous.
Yeah well, the old topic. POSIX allows \0123 and \123 octals in
different tools, in printf, depending on %b or other things.
We'll just keep it simple and just allow 4 digits. the 0 does not make
a difference anyway.